Presentation Transcript

1. Law 603:Howard Bunsis

   Analysis of Walz Case
2. Facts and Prior Rulings An owner of real estate in Richmond County, New York, sought an injunction in the New York courts to prevent the New York City Tax Commission from granting property tax exemptions to religious organizations for religious properties used solely for religious worship. The Church won at trial, on appeal, and on appeal to New York’s highest court
3. Basic Argument of Taxpayer The tax exemption is in essence forcing the taxpayer to make a contribution to a religious group, which violates the 1st amendments No real estate exemption because only church stuff is done inside the church The 1st amendment states that:” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Further, the 14th amendment is binding on the states: “ . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
4. Basic Argument of the Church Historically, States believe that churches, because of the good they do, should not have to pay taxes. The exemption goes to other nonprofits as well These groups are beneficial to the community The tax exemption gets taken away if the church goes too far outside its mission This tax exemption is consistent with our country’s history
5. Court Analysis of the 1st Amendment The writers of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment believed that the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity. This could clash with the free exercise component of the First Amendment 'The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952) Bottom Line: The court will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion Still, this can be a tough call, as the 1st amendment is not that explicit
6. Everson (1947) New Jersey spent tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools Even though this helps kids get to church schools, it is still ok. This type of aid is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, like than providing 'state-paid policemen, detailed to protect children Majority: “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can ... pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Dissent: Not enough separation between church and state Overall, the Court believes past decisions have successfully negotiated the tightrope between the two main components of the first amendment: We are a religious people, but don’t go too far in helping churches (supplying costly teaching materials to church schools was ok in another case).
7. Court Analysis of the State Statute New York is not establishing religion with a tax exemption; the statute helps the church exercise its religion by freeing it of the tax burden. The court is NOT basing its decision on the “good” that churches perform for the community Question for the court: Does the tax exemption create too much government entanglement with religion? They claim taxing churches is more involved than not taxing them. Hmmm.
8. Why the Exemption is OK; No establishment, and allowing free exercise The exemption is not sponsorship – not taxing is less involved than giving the church money directly Tax exemptions do not convert art museums into arms of the State No “nexus” between the tax exemption and the establishment of religion. The exemption is a minimal level of State involvement Separation does not mean absence of all contact between church and state All 50 States have the exemption Benevolent neutrality towards churches
9. Congress and Majority Court Decision 1802: Statute supported the exemption 1813: No import duties paid by religious societies on the importation of religious articles 1870: Congress enacted a Washington DC exemption on taxes for churches We have had 200 years of tax exemptions, but no sign or danger of State establishment of religion. This is to refute the dissent of Douglas. Therefore, the New York tax exemption is ok
10. Brennan Concurrence Reaffirms 3-pronged test of Schremp (1963) to see if the government goes too far in supporting religion. Some entanglement is ok, as long as they do not: Serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions Employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes Use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends, where secular means would suffice ARGUMENTS: (1) Serve Essentially secular activities Relies on the long history of the tax exemption, from the 1780’s to the present day. Private, nonprofit organizations contribute to the well-being of the community . . . and thereby bear burdens that would otherwise either have to be met by general taxation, or be left undone, to the detriment of the community”
11. More Brennan (2) Essentially Religious Purposes The real estate exemption is ok, as though religious stuff happens in the church, so does non-religious stuff, like charity work Arts and scientific organizations also receive an exemption, as they and churches all contribute to society. This is not like school prayer (3) Essentially Religious Means: Not as crazy for the exemption as the majority is, as he claims the exemption could possibly lead to the state being too involved with religion. A tax exemption is not the same as a subsidy (the majority said this as well).
12. Harlan Concurrence Agrees with the majority, but worries about too much government involvement with religion Balance neutrality with volunteerism: No government laws that favor religion over non-religion, nor one sect, nor try to encourage or deny people religion. Also cites Watkins (1961), making sure nonbelievers are not given short shrift Wants to make sure “State is not 'utilizing the prestige, power, and influence' of a public institution to bring religion into the lives of citizens” However, unlike the dissent, he does not see subsidy as the next step after tax exemption, or the “Slippery Slope”. However, he does agree with dissent that economically, a subsidy and tax exemption are the same.
13. Douglas Dissent Cites Watkins, where the court held that a State could not bar an atheist (the plaintiff in this case is a Christian) from public office, due to the 1st and 14th amendments. No law can be passed which favors believers over nonbelievers, nor support those that believe in God. Douglas believes this principle should apply here It is ok for the State to close public schools on Sundays; it is not ok to subsidize churches Claims the 14th amendment puts strict constitutional limits on the states School prayer was not banned until 1962, when the Court banned it in Engle v. Vitale, a case that led to numerous protests
14. More Dissent Not the same as Everson, which was about using public funds to bus kids to parochial schools and public schools. In Everson, secular education did occur in private schools. It was 5-4, and Douglas regrets being in the majority. Here, the dollars do not go to education, but to the church itself. Big claim: A tax exemption is a subsidy. The majority did not accept this. It is ok to give tax breaks and subsidies to charities that help the poor. Government has the power over helping the poor, so it is ok. However, the government cannot be in the religion business, and should not be giving them a tax break. Conclusion: The tax exemption or subsidy is not even arguably permitted (to him, it is a no-brainer). Lastly, it does not matter if the church is doing church work or charity work. He thinks the next step is that the church will be on the public payroll.